Agenda item - BH2016/05563- Tyson Place and St John's Mount, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of insulated render cladding to all elevations and replacement of existing windows and doors with uPVC windows and doors and associated elevations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queens Park

Installation of insulated render cladding to all elevations and replacement of existing windows and doors with UPVC windows and doors and associated alterations.

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that these residential blocks had been built in the 1960s. The supporting Planning Statement stated that the proposed alterations were required due to defects to the brickwork pointing, a lack of thermal insulation and the resultant possibility of condensation. The windows were estimated to be at least 25-30 years and in many instances were distorted, draughty and defective.

(2)          The Planning Statement also stated that the exposed concrete to the balconies and ground floor undercroft was cracking and spalling in places and tests had demonstrated that works were also required to protect the balconies and undercroft from chlorination through salt damage. On balance, it was considered that the benefits of the proposed scheme in terms of improved appearance of the blocks in the wider vicinity and near-by conservation areas, and the improved sustainability and thermal efficiency of the blocks outweighed any possible harm caused by the potential deterioration of the rendering as this could be overcome by a regular maintenance schedule; approval was therefore recommended.

Questions for Officers

(3)          Councillor Wares asked for clarification regarding the precise thickness and specification of the render to be used and regarding assurances that had been sought regarding the quality and longevity of the finishes proposed. Materials proposed for use on other blocks in the city had not ultimately been considered fit for purpose.

(4)          Councillors Hyde and Janio concurred in that view considering that as these works were proposed by the Council on its own properties all of the necessary technical information should be available on such matters.

(5)          Councillor Morris considered that the information provided by the applicants was misleading as different types of render had been provided at different developments across the city. Councillor Morris also enquired regarding the works proposed to the balconies and whether they would be the same as those undertaken at Albion Hill. That information was not available and it was confirmed in answer to further questions that although much of the work proposed did not require planning permission it was proposed that all of the works would be carried out at the same time.

(6)         Councillor Moonan referred to the proposed materials stating that she understood that the type of render proposed had been in use for some time.

(7)                     Councillors Wares and Hyde considered that representatives of the applicants should have been on hand at the meeting in order to answer any technical questions Members might have had, notwithstanding that in the absence of objectors they would not ordinarily be given the opportunity to speak. They did not feel that the Committee currently had sufficient information in order to determine the application.

(8)                     In view of the discussions which had taken place advice was sought from the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, who stated that in this instance it would be appropriate for Members to defer determination of the application if they considered they required more information in order to do so. The applicants could also be invited to attend in order to answer any technical queries.

(9)                     Following further discussion a vote was taken and the 9 Members present at that time voted by 8 to 1 with 1 abstention that further consideration and determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit and submission of samples by the applicants. Representatives on behalf of the applicants also to be invited in order to respond to any technical questions Members might have.

96.7      RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred pending a site visit and submission of samples by the applicants. Representatives on behalf of the applicants also to be invited to attend the Committee in order to respond to any technical questions which Members may have.

Note: Councillors Mac Cafferty, Miller and Inkpin-Leissner were not present during consideration or determination of the above application.